Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Used As Machinery For Settling Property Disputes Between Heirs Of Senior Citizens: Bombay High Court

Justice Sandeep Marne made these observations while dealing with a writ petition by a man challenging the order of the maintenance tribunal nullifying various gift deeds executed by his senior citizen father in his favour.

The petitioner had alleged that his brother instigated his father to seek annulment of gift deeds as he wants a share in the gifted flats.

“The provision of Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act cannot be used as a machinery for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior citizens. However, unfortunately in many cases, it is observed that such a course of action is taken by the parties…The Tribunal therefore has to ensure that the provision is not misused by children who are denied share in the immovable properties by seeking to get gift-deed annulled by filing application through senior citizens”, the court observed.

In February, the petitioner's father, a senior citizen, filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal for the return of various properties gifted by him to the petition and for payment of maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month.

Petitioner's father claimed in the application that he has three sons, and after the demise of his wife, his son Nitin (petitioner) executed four Gift Deeds in respect of various immovable properties from him as well as took possession of various other immovable properties. He claimed that after the execution of various Gift Deeds in his favour, the petitioner started ill-treating him by removing all the servants and confining him to one room.

The Tribunal partly allowed the application, and declared the gift deeds null and void with further directions to the petitioner (Nitin) to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of three of the flats to his father. Thus, the petitioners approached the High Court challenging this order.

The court noted that the petitioner's father was not the absolute owner in respect of the three flats, as they were initially purchased jointly with his wife and after her death, her share was inherited equally by him and their three sons. Further, only two of the sons, including the petitioner, released their shares to their father while the third son held onto his shares.

Thus, the petitioner's father was not the absolute owner in any of the three flats and neither would he become the absolute owner upon revocation of the four Gift Deeds, the court said.

“Therefore, the direction for vacation of all the three flats, premised on the assumption that Respondent No. 2 (petitioner's father) would become 100% owner in respect of all of them, appears to be clearly erroneous”, the court held.

Under section 23(1), the transfer of a property is presumed to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence and can be declared as void by the Tribunal at the option of the Transferor, if the transfer is made on the condition that the Transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the Transferor.

All four Gift Deeds were executed subject to a specific covenant that the petitioner shall not cause any hindrance to his father's occupation, residence and enjoyment of the gifted flats. The court opined that provision of residence a basic amenities as well as basic physical need of a senior citizen.

Thus, though the gift deeds do not contain a specific condition that they were executed subject to the condition of provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs, the court held that the existence of that condition can be inferred on account of the covenant for providing residence to the father as well as an admission of liability to provide residence to him by the Petitioner.

The court observed that as the father was not the sole owner of the flats in question the shares of the flats for which he never paid any consideration could not be given back to him by revoking the gift deeds.

The father's main complaint was being denied residence in the gifted flats, leading him to reside with another son in Ahmedabad. The Maintenance Tribunal did not award monthly maintenance to the father, citing his failure to implead all three sons in the proceedings. However, the petitioner expressed willingness to provide residence in alternative flats and offer monthly maintenance.

The court observed that the objective of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act is to ensure basic amenities for seniors, not to nullify valid transfers.

Thus, the court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal's order nullifying the gift deeds and directed the petitioner to provide his father residence in one of the flats along with a monthly maintenance payment of Rs. 25,000 to the father.

Senior Advocate GS Godbole along with advocates Manuj Borkar and Prasad D Borkar represented the petitioner.

Advocates Ameet Mehta, Sheetal Pandya and Pratiksha Udeshi represented the petitioner's father.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 590 of 2023

Case Title – Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors.